• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Ched Evans...

Status
Not open for further replies.

JumpingAnaconda said:
There were a lot of people on this forum that absolutely condemned Evans and anybody that had doubts about the case. I was one of those that said over and over again that the case was an outrageous and obvious miscarriage of justice, and I personally took a lot of grief. When he was eventually absolved of any wrongdoing and found innocent in the appeal, a number on here could not swallow their pride and admit they were wrong.

I am involved in active campaigns to address sexual abuse and trafficking and I am utterly opposed to it and any form of sex without consent. However, I also believe you have to have a legal system that is robust and which leaves no reasonable doubt when convicting people. When the court finds someone has been convicted of something they have been subsequently demonstrated to not have done, and are thus innocent, you have to treat them as innocent. It is wrong to make them a pariah primarily because a few people ranted about how there was absolutely no way he was innocent, and then were shown to be wrong, or because of resentment towards something the court says he did not do.
Click to expand...

You are confusing innocent and not guilty.

They are not the same.

If you read the published details of the first trial, the subsequent appeal and then have squint at the Secret Barrister's blog, it should be blindingly obvious that his behaviour on that night, whilst not criminal, was utterly despicable.

Just being linked with this odious character is a massive PR own goal.
 
Last edited:
Pancho said:
You are confusing innocent and not guilty.

They are not the same.

If you read the published details of the first trial, the subsequent appeal and then have squint at the Secret Barrister's blog, it should be blindingly obvious that his behaviour on that night, whilst not criminal, was utterly despicable.

Just being linked with this odious character is a massive PR own goal.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the video of the girl he was accused of raping in the hotel reception that night after she arrived, and of her walking back outside on high heals to get the pizza she’d put down after getting out of the taxi?
 
Pancho said:
You are confusing innocent and not guilty.

They are not the same.

If you read the published details of the first trial, the subsequent appeal and then have squint at the Secret Barrister's blog, it should be blindingly obvious that his behaviour on that night, whilst not criminal, was utterly despicable.

Just being linked with this odious character is a massive PR own goal.
Click to expand...
He sounds like someone bitter about getting the original call wrong.
 
gretzky said:
Have you seen the video of the girl he was accused of raping in the hotel reception that night after she arrived, and of her walking back outside on high heals to get the pizza she’d put down after getting out of the taxi?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Have you read the rest of the transcript of the trial?
 
Pancho said:
You are confusing innocent and not guilty.

They are not the same.

If you read the published details of the first trial, the subsequent appeal and then have squint at the Secret Barrister's blog, it should be blindingly obvious that his behaviour on that night, whilst not criminal, was utterly despicable.

Just being linked with this odious character is a massive PR own goal.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
 
gretzky said:
Yes.

Serious question. From that video, how drunk do you think that she looks?
Click to expand...

I'm probably not the best person to comment on that but she appeared to be reasonably compos mentis at that time.

Of course that may not have been the case some time later when the alleged offence took place.

None of that alters the fact that Evans and his mate admitted in court to some pretty skeevy behaviour.
 
Pancho said:
You are confusing innocent and not guilty.

They are not the same.

If you read the published details of the first trial, the subsequent appeal and then have squint at the Secret Barrister's blog, it should be blindingly obvious that his behaviour on that night, whilst not criminal, was utterly despicable.

Just being linked with this odious character is a massive PR own goal.
Click to expand...

And yet his girlfriend at the time’s father was one of his most vocal supporters. I might be wrong but I believe he funded evans’ defence. Would you do that if it was your daughter and you believed him to be an odious monster? Perhaps he was closer to the facts, who knows?
 
Pancho said:
I'm probably not the best person to comment on that but she appeared to be reasonably compos mentis at that time.

Of course that may not have been the case some time later when the alleged offence took place.

None of that alters the fact that Evans and his mate admitted in court to some pretty skeevy behaviour.
Click to expand...
I agree that a lot of people would question their morals, but how many other footballers or in fact ordinary lads have done similar things? I’m not saying it’s ok, but I do think that Evans has suffered more than enough already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top